“…. As our exchanges are bound to get nowhere, let's leave it at that.”

You are not the first to have noticed that any discussion of France provokes this poster to pop up and kill the topic with childish irrelevance, usually of the far-right variety. As a similarly infrequent visitor to the this blog, you will also have noticed that there is a gathering of a small clique of endlessly repetitive, facebooking, insecure, pro-“EU” dinosaurs such as the one mentioned with all its aliases (repeatedly banned), who evidently have little else to do with their lives.
This one, “TPain”, actually praised every deed of Nicolas Sarkozy while he was president and would defend him in the most childish ways imaginable, and was very upset when he was ousted. Now she does exactly the same for Hollande! No point in discussion with that one. So yes “best left at that”, but don’t be put off by the likes of “TPain” who succeed in alienating even the staunchest Francophile.

I see her fellow euromorlok pumpernickel has programmed her to talk to herself. Or has the delirium tremens kicked in?

Too bad, this Mirino seemed an interesting fellow with a mind of his own unlike the euromorloks, but he must have left the place disgusted.
(Which we all must from time to time - especially now that the morloks are having multiple orgasms at the latest diktats from the porkster, which they all follow obediently led by facebooking sheep-in-chief pumpabore.)

The point, as Saki would have quipped, is that the French, like the Balkans of his time, produce entirely too much history for their own consumption, and TE is always happy to skim and recycle the surplus.

This comment was really intended for the article on Manuel Valls. Nevertheless I trust it will also be considered generally in keeping with the above article, and thank the monitors in advance for this consideration.

In my modest opinion, Manuel Valls is the only minister in F. Hollande's mediocre government that seems to be taking his responsibilities seriously, even if he has no other choice. But to do this he's obliged to override the dogma and ideology of socialism.

For those less pragmatic and realistic, like Christian Taubira who, if they had their own way, would free all the prisons of prisoners as if they were so many 'Bastilles',
the treatment of the Romanians/Gypsies, is unacceptable. But there are serious health risks. Romania is also a EU member, so it has to assume its own social responsibilities.
If a paid trip home doesn't seem to have much sense, it's better than callously evicting them with nothing. That they are likely to return later, is more a European constitutional problem than the French Interior minister's.

What is totally incoherent is F. Hollande's projects to allow immigrants free privileges including health care and quasi automatic regularisation, whilst he shows the minimum respect for French companies on whom the country depends, certainly with his grotesque, punitive 75% imposition. As one commentator wrote for Figaro, "on (le gov.) exporte les riches et on importe les pauvres." It's exactly that.

So whilst the rich that Hollande has publicly stated he so dislikes (thus waking the old, degenerate monster of class division, if not the hate that stems from the bowels of the French Revolution itself, and encouraging the modest (socialist voters) to join the band-wagon of hate and jealousy, and joyfully treat the rich as scapegoats, France risks to create a situation where the immigrants will flock to the new European Eldorado via the red carpeted front door, whist the victimised rich businessmen will understandably be inclined to discreetly leave like banished 'parasites' via the back door, to set up their affairs elsewhere.

However, it's quite plausible that there are as many, if not more, rich socialists than rich non socialists. They, which would include Hollande himself, should in principle also be subject to Holland's hate.
It's also probable that with the immigrants, generously and openly invited, (no strings attached, future socialist voters) will accumulate ethnic problems and thus security problems. It will also increase criminality in general. But the socialists (excluding perhaps Valls) would consider it politically incorrect to make such a correlation between immigrants and such unfortunate negative consequences, even though the facts continually prove this to be the case.

Manuel Valls has therefore a huge responsibility to assume. Eventually the experience could well have a political influence on him. In fact two years should be more than enough to give socialism the chop once and for all.

"Anglo-Scottish artist living in France"
I understand why you never were deleted on the previous thread
"So whilst the rich that Hollande has publicly stated he so dislikes (thus waking the old, degenerate monster of class division, if not the hate that stems from the bowels of the French Revolution itself, and encouraging the modest (socialist voters) to join the band-wagon of hate and jealousy, and joyfully treat the rich as scapegoats, France risks to create a situation where the immigrants will flock to the new European Eldorado via the red carpeted front door, whist the victimised rich businessmen will understandably be inclined to discreetly leave like banished 'parasites' via the back door, to set up their affairs elsewhere."
You're excused (as a expat in France) for not capting the electoral campain subtility, Hollande was then addressing Melenchon's voters, who was credited as much as Marine Lepen in polls, Hollande then was pusshing the bids along Sarkozy's and Melenchon's arguments for getting the medias attraction, because it was all about being screened, no image = down in the polls !
Today, the presidential and legislatives elections are over, Hollande has not the will to fulfill all these electoral promisses, and of course he is embarrassed by what he said during his electoral campain
well developped in this article:http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2012/09/07/la-taxe-a-75-histoire...
tell us, did you immigrate into France for paying lesser taxes than in Britain?

Your argument is cancelled out by the fact that Hollande has never publicly repudiated any public statement he made. He persists and signs by continuing to apply his hare-brained scheme of grotesquely taxing those on whom France seriously depends, and not applying the same principle of 'égalité' to those ('les sportifs et les artistes') on whom France doesn't depend.

As to your point that the presidential and legislative elections are over, the socialists continue to behave as if this were certainly not the case. Even during Hollande's last tv justification pantomime, he couldn't resist having another go at Sarkozy.

As to your personal comments and queries, they don't reinforce your non existing argument, and they do you no credit.

(Re. the link, one shouldn't need to hunt about for vague justifications for Hollande's faux pas. If he believes he has made an error of judgement, he should have the courage to publicly admit it).

"Name one politician that admits his errors?" Easy, N. Sarkozy.
Arnault has, and will continue to have, far more economic clout and responsibility in France than ever the poor, insignificant journal you are lamely trying to defend can possibly have. The fact that you find their front page amusing, clearly spells things out as far as your tastes and political inclinations are concerned.
As our exchanges are bound to get nowhere, let's leave it at that.

Maria Claude once again you are so wrong,The Rothschild's do not own the TE,Lord Jacob Rothschild acquired a 3% stake in the TE group many years ago through RIT investment trust that is a quoted company on the LSE the 3% shareholding was sold 18 months ago by the trust,The TE group major shareholder is Pearson that also prints the FT,They own 50% of the Company with the staff and smaller shareholders owning the rest.

'The "rich" -- and bosses in general -- remain the class enemy of a large part of a nation which has not yet overcome the divisions of the 1789 revolution.’[The Times, 11-9-12]

There is little doubt – objectively speaking – that the principal beneficiaries of the French Revolution were the middle classes. Yet, ironically enough, the French left has incorporated the events into its creation myth. This myth is harder still to sustain in view of the Corsican Corporal who came along with his plans for global domination… and ended up with a France much diminished in size and population. However the myth-makers got to work producing an unhistorical Citizen-Emperor, producer of a legal code enshrining all manner of highly dubious ‘Republican Values’.

The Putney Debates predate Napoleon by a century and a half and represent an altogether more wholesome wellspring for the politics of the Left. Sans-culottes, indeed. Give me Levellers and Diggers, every time.

"The "rich" -- and bosses in general -- remain the class enemy of a large part of a nation which has not yet overcome the divisions of the 1789 revolution.’[The Times, 11-9-12]"

The Richs, (very rich) get little empathy, for good reasons they are most likely the bigger cheaters, but the boss are respected when they respect the workers,

The Middle classes during the Revolution were the lefties, and still today a significant part is still lefty.

The Corsican Caporal was a Revolution product, he had not such plans for global domination but to resist to the european monarchies that wanted to attack France, as the revolutionnaires ideas were dangerous for their kingdoms. Napoleon just gave them a lesson of republican freedom and of human rights. Of course his mission had little approbation from the neighbourhood, especially from England. Probably that he is at the origin of the nation/state concept, he was the first to use masse conscription, and what is better that a common arm brotherhood for forging patriotism and nationalism?

"The Putney Debates predate Napoleon by a century and a half and represent an altogether more wholesome wellspring for the politics of the Left. Sans-culottes, indeed. Give me Levellers and Diggers, every time."

Yet they got favorable climate conditions, while 1789 happened in a bankrupted country (financing the american war of independance had a lot to do too), where food prices became the lever of revolts (like for the arabs spring), after two years of bad weather, where crops were ruined by cold, rains, and or dryness.

If such conditions weren't the context, probably that today we would have a parliamentary monarchy, like for England, and spain today

So, like Paine, who contradicted Burke, the French worship their new statute of non-subjects, from the right to the left.

France is a big state spender and Hollande is promises the French people the moon, but in reality he cannot deliver as France is already heavily in the red.
Its little wonder that foreign companies think long and hard before setting up a factory in France with Frances layer cake employment laws and socialist unions.

Sorry, TE, you are my favourite newspaper, but with this article you are really disappointing. This article is nothing but gossip and underhanded personal attack. There is analysis of policy, no valuable information. Just gossip. I suggest submitting this article to The Sun for a more appropriate audience.

"With such a complex ongoing drama, the normal presidency promises to be anything but."

But that is where the Economist makes a major journalist mistake. Complex ongoing drama IS normality in France! Everything is drama in France. A factory closes and it is drama. Gas prices increase and it is drama. Now that the French press is somewhat liberated from their culturally imposed silence they can have ago at it as well as the best of the English shiny sheets. However in France there are still limits to how far they can dig before a high ranked politician steps in and calls game over. IMHO, how can someone remain with an individual for so long, have children and share their lives and not further commit through marriage. It all comes down to the French model of not being able to commit. Not only in marriage but in many aspects of economics, politics and life in general. Ideas which require commitment are soon abandoned because the commitment is too tough in the long run. It all ends in one big "Bof"

Sarkozy at least got married but for all the wrong reasons. He most certainly wanted to show the world his trophy and the former first lady most certainly wanted to show the world that she existed outside of a small circle of musically challenged adepts in the "Hexagone" who find talent in syrupy pussy cat like ex groupie singers. So it backfired on Sarkozy and the laws of nature remain intact as they should. He was sent packing.

As far as the cat fights between French women are concerned: They are quite notorious for their jealousy and get even at any cost attitude.

I agree with Rivierarocket in finding precious little link between being Francois Hollande little bit of fluff and the entitlements to which she (and he!) think think she is entitled. Mesdames de Pompadour and others are sooo... 18th century.

For a provincial unsophisticate like me the liaison is irregular, unwarranted, and possibly dangerous. La Trierweiler must be giving the security services palpitations... and not on account of any wriggly or giggly goings-on.

Journalists are not noted for their muteness.

Lurking in the background of my thoughts is another first-ministerial consort, comtesse Helene des Portes, she who unmanned Paul Reynaud. Dammit, it's not cricket, sir.

Of course. So what? the days are long gone when Monsieur le Commissaire would break into a bedroom upon suspicions of adultery, and finding an unmarried couple in bed, would slide a ruler between the two bodies - any obstacle hindering the ruler's course from head to toe would be proof positive.

"unwarranted"

This not for you to decide. Or me.

"and possibly dangerous"

What is not?

Reynaud was a rightist and de Portes a fascist, an union made in heaven. What could you expect. Up to now, anyway, the evidence seems to point to a rather unmovable stolidity in Hollande. If he sways or changes his mind it is because of personal analysis, not under spousal nagging. In fact I'd be hard put to find anything remotely recalling the Reynaud-De Portes nonsense in the Fifth Republic. Can you? I'm talking about important policymaking, not everyday courtier shuffling, always a playground for first ladies everywhere.

That insistence on marriage can be lethal. Remember that Brit king who had to behead his wives so he could marry another one. A French king simply took mistresses, sired b@st@rds and gave them duchies.

‘I can hardly imagine the scandal that would explode in the USA or Canada for that matter if a president or prime minister lived openly in sin.’ [Emma Finney]

I would hate to live in a society that was so censorious or indeed intrusive. Aren’t the Americans having great difficulties with an ever so slightly coffee-coloured President, let alone non-standard life-styles? All I argue for is an awareness that, for a head of state endowed with quasi-monarchical powers, the matter of his common-law wife – and why not wives while we’re at it? – is not a matter that can loftily be dismissed with zero regard for the security or reputational implications.

Mistresses can have a short shelf-life, you know, and there’s nothing to prevent serial philanderers from having two or three of them on the go at once. Between you and me, Emma, the French public can be awfully conventional in their fixed ideas; this has the regrettable consequence of making them unaware of pitfalls.

One wonders if it has occurred to the French public that the curvaceous inamorata may exercise an entirely baleful influence over hapless François? He has a track-record, after all, of being attracted to ladies who like to be in charge. And it’s not as if his presidential actions are particularly coherent.

The Brit king - as you so charmingly put it - was eager to unite his kingdom. For this he had to ensure a legitimate succession, if possible by a male heir. Booting out the Roman Catholics was a bonus.

'In fact I'd be hard put to find anything remotely recalling the Reynaud-De Portes nonsense in the Fifth Republic. Can you? I'm talking about important policymaking, not everyday courtier shuffling, always a playground for first ladies everywhere.' [Dominique II]

Thanks for inviting me, Dominique. The activities of recent French presidents are shrouded from the vulgar eyes of the (Republican) public gaze. That’s the point. Were France an Italian statelet of the Cinquecento we could commend her relative transparency… but she’s not, so we can’t. The Fifth Republic is an institution embodying the principle of the essential un-governability of the French nation. Discretion is a fetish.

I worry that many of the member states of the European Union – particularly the more cash-strapped ones! – are not yet fully-fledged sovereign states, with all the democratic safeguards that this implies. I worry that France is one of them. Government by experts and technocrats is all very well but it’s not messy, muddled, and democratic. I wish I could boldly state, ‘God alone knows what goes on in the Élysée palace!’ but I have my doubts that even He does.

"The Fifth Republic is an institution embodying the principle of the essential un-governability of the French nation. Discretion is a fetish."
not, it was necessary when it was created, governemnts had a few months life lengh, because the parliament could never get on agreeing on anything, 3 main parties were opposing each others
No, you don't worry, just that you're happy to have found a horse for your battle, France is such a source for your inspired comments

Here again you trod in the heavy moralizing soup so dear to Puritan hearts.

Going-ons at the Elysée palace would warrant frequent calls in a confession both? Sure. So what.

What does it have to do with your one and only valid point, which is the danger of concubine-led presidential power? Once again these guys may have had a personal life not up to your straitlaced standards, but were they pu$$y-whipped wimps telling their Ministers what the missus told them to?

I have absolutely no problems with the lack of transparency which so offends you. As if there was any transparency in Washington or London! In an ideal world there could be transparency at the top, but then, in an ideal world, we'd all wear wings and play the harp.

The Elysée is a truly Gormenghastian maze. Behind its classical walls are innumerable halls and windowless offices, most of them very modest in size and appointment. When I visited advisors there I always had to have a guide. That is the way it should be.

"Aren’t the Americans having great difficulties with an ever so slightly coffee-coloured President,"

And this great insight about difficulties with Obama's colour was gleaned from facts such as that the majority of Americans elected him President? that more people voted for Obama than they did for other democratic candidates/presidents (Kerry or Clinton) who by the way weren't coffee coloured.

Perhaps you are projecting Europeans of certain generation who have difficulties with Obama's skin colour onto Americans to have arrived at this startling conclusion which is contradicted by facts.

You must not project your country's history onto others but instead try to understand countries from their historical narrative.

"I guess you'd join the baying pack,"

Always quick on the accusations and finger pointing. And this outburst was your reaction to your inability to understand the differences in history and culture between countries. There are things we may find repulsive about French society too incase you forgot.

'Perhaps you are projecting Europeans of certain generation who have difficulties with Obama's skin colour onto Americans to have arrived at this startling conclusion which is contradicted by facts.' [emmafinney]

Only Americans could prefer a Mormon multimillionaire, every dollar dodgily eared, over a model citizen like Barack. Race is a matter I refuse to be preached to upon by a representative of the USA. Shame on you. What color is the USA prison population? I suspect that church attendance is largely on racial lines. Jesus wept, girl.

'Perhaps you are projecting Europeans of certain generation who have difficulties with Obama's skin colour onto Americans to have arrived at this startling conclusion which is contradicted by facts.' [emmafinney]
Only Americans could prefer a Mormon multimillionaire, every dollar dodgily earned, over a model citizen like Barack. With charm. Race is a matter I refuse to be preached to upon by a representative of the USA. Shame on you. What color is the USA prison population? I suspect that church attendance is largely on racial lines. Jesus wept, girl.
During the war, UK citizens got involved on several occasions in brawls with USA GIs... about how the latter behaved towards the black GIs. So I suggest that you withdraw your condescending claptrap.

"Only Americans could prefer a Mormon multimillionaire, every dollar dodgily eared, over a model citizen like Barack."

Congradulations on being the first to know the election results even though nobody has voted yet.

He is the republican candidate and it may shock you but in a democracy people are given a choice between two candidates. Your prejudices towards mormons due to your ignorance is your problem, your prejudice towards millionaries is strange coming from a country which has a class system where the nobility inherit millions without working for it unlike Romney who earned and worked for his money. If you prefer the former, say no more. And also please provide us with the proof that he broke laws to earn that money.

"Race is a matter I refuse to be preached to upon by a representative of the USA."

And I refused to be preached to upon by a representative of a country whose population is more racist than the USA. To deny that race is not more of a problem in Britain with a bigger chunk of the population is hiding your head in the sand despite these hard cold facts :

1) Where is your Obama?

2)Where are your Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal, children of Indian immigrants elected in state wide elections to the highest office.

Indian immigrants come in large numbers to your country at about the same time as they did in the USA.

"What color is the USA prison population?"

What color is British's prison population? Your minority population is just over 10% but they make up a lot more than 10% of your prison population.

Now tell us about the segregated schools in Britain where parents don't like to send their kids to schools if it has a majority Asian student body. I saw a BBC program where the government is trying to desegregate schools now in the 21st century with lessons learned from America from way back in the 1970s.

"I suspect that church attendance is largely on racial lines. Jesus wept, girl."

Actually church attendance in America today in the 21st century is a lot more diverse than Britain today. If Jesus is weeping, it is for Britain.

PS: More Americans voted for Obama than other democratic candidates/presidents like Kerry or Clinton. Shatters your moral superiority? Tough!

"During the war, UK citizens got involved on several occasions in brawls with USA GIs... about how the latter behaved towards the black GIs. So I suggest that you withdraw your condescending claptrap."

I suggest you keep up with the news. That was 70 years ago.
Unlike Britain the USA had a civil rights revolution which over time resulted in a lot of progress in race relations.

The America of today is not the America of 1940's do try to keep up with the news.

Unfortunately Britain didn't have a civil rights revolutions and hence today is more racist society than the USA.

On the contrary it is your claptrap that is condescending coming as you do from a country that erupted in race riots in the 1980's to a country that has elected a black president.

‘Overall then, pupils of Indian and Chinese origin tend to do very well, out-performing both the average and the scores of white pupils. By contrast, pupils of Pakistani origin show a very varied pattern of achievement with some doing very well and others relatively poorly.
‘Pupils of Bangladeshi origin, who tend to experience higher levels of poverty, mostly under-perform compared to other groups, although in one London borough they are the highest achieving of all ethnic groups.
‘Probably the greatest concern is over pupils, especially boys, of African and Caribbean origin. This concern extends beyond examination performance to issues of discipline and motivation.’

"During the war, UK citizens got involved on several occasions in brawls with USA GIs... about how the latter behaved towards the black GIs."

Get Real!

Several equals more than two but not many to my knowledge. How many US troop were on British soil during WW2. Over a hundred thousand maybe? I don't know but if you do please enlighten me. So your comment on "several occasions" seems to me to be simply a histrionic knee jerk operation. As for racism in the US. Sure it exists as it exists in all countries. We have very strong laws against racism in hiring and discrimination. I suggest you test them to see if racism is condoned in the US. I suppose you live in GB. Am correct?

The examples of racism in the UK are also easy to dig up but in my opinion don't necessarily represent the people of the UK.

Police forces in the United Kingdom have been accused of institutionalised racism since the late 20th century.[who?] A stand which many[who?] believe is the catalyst for the 2011 summer riot. During the riot, a Metropolitan Police officer, PC Alex MacFarlane,[27] arrested and attempted strangling an African origin male and used racial words like 'n**ger' and 'black c*nt' on him. The case was referred to UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who declined bringing charges against the officers involved. The CPS reconsidered their decision after being threatened by the victim's lawyer to escalate the case to a high court. On March 31st 2012, it was announced the victim has presented a taped recording of the recorded abuses from the police.

And lastly what kind of racist country would elect a black man, son of a Muslim to the most powerful position in the world.

And if a Mormon millionaire wins the presidency so what. It will have been the people of the United States who elected him. Why are you bringing religion into the debate.

First of all before you preach to others about intolerance and prejudice, you need to take a good look in the mirror about your own prejudices against mormons.
I understand it is probably caused by ignorance and the usual snobbish European attitudes towards anything American that they don't have on their soil and hence don't understand. Lazy ignorance is a lot easier than the hard work of learning and understanding ain't it?
Shame on you for using religion as a stick against Romney.
And when and if Britain elects a prime minister with a muslim middle name, let us talk.

When will the USA vote in a women President we have already had one of them as a leader,As to USA civil rights and rioting remember Rodney king and that was in the 1990s by way.As to blacks in the UK one was voted in as a mayor in the 1920s and guess what blacks where are allowed to vote then also and mixed marriages where allowed,Emma there are more mixed marriages in the UK than anywhere on earth,Sorry when was the black man allowed to vote and when was mixed race marriages allowed in the land of the free mid 1960s was it.Yes very progressive.

‘Several equals more than two but not many to my knowledge. How many US troop were on British soil during WW2. Over a hundred thousand maybe? I don't know but if you do please enlighten me. So your comment on "several occasions" seems to me to be simply a histrionic knee jerk operation. ‘ [Rivierarocket]

The tone of your own remarks is far more damaging to the United States’ reputation than anything I could have written. Isn’t this all rather childish? Not to say inconsequential? It is a fact F-A-C-T that Brits’ sense of fair-play was offended by white GIs’ behaviour towards their black comrades. Fact. No doubt at all that the Brits also had what – with the benefit of hindsight! – we would today call racist attitudes. But that is off-topic, irrelevant. The WHOLE POINT is that in those dim and distant days EVEN the benighted Brits’ sensibilities (casual ‘racism’ and all) were offended by the crassly larger-than-life attitudes of very young and untraveled American GIs. Please do not skip the following lines, taken from page 483 of Juliet Gardiner’s ‘Wartime’, Headline (2004):

‘Although Britain was not innocent of racism towards its own small black population, the attitude of most of the public towards GIs seems to have been ‘They’re all soldiers. They’ve come to fight the same war’, and many Britons saw no reason to distinguish between a white American and a black one. They were disturbed by the treatment they saw meted out to the black Americans by their white compatriots, and they responded to what they saw as the black men’s humiliation, feeling that such prejudice sat ill in a war being fought to destroy Nazism and its racial attitudes: ‘A Jim Crow army cannot fight cannot fight for a free world’. A Cambridge man thought the treatment of the coloured races of the US army etc by the white fellows is disgusting . . . after all, both races are doing the same job of work’. And a Birmingham man reported, ‘I have personally seen the American troops kick, and I mean kick, coloured soldiers off the pavements, and when asked why, reply “stinking black pigs”, or “black trash” or “uppity niggers”

‘Publicans, café owners and shopkeepers might not always have been paragons of racial tolerance, but they were often incensed at being dictated to about who they could and could not serve, welcoming ‘any soldier of any colour who behaved himself and could pay for his drink.’

‘First of all before you preach to others about intolerance and prejudice, you need to take a good look in the mirror about your own prejudices against mormons.
I understand it is probably caused by ignorance and the usual snobbish European attitudes towards anything American that they don't have on their soil and hence don't understand. Lazy ignorance is a lot easier than the hard work of learning and understanding ain't it? / Shame on you for using religion as a stick against Romney.’ [emmafinney]

Gosh, what a lovely line in self-parody you do.

Mormonism a religion? I’m quite happy to accept as ‘religious’ the movement built around the music and memory of the late, great John Coltrane; but I draw the line at the revelations vouchsafed to a certain John Smith:

‘Mormonism is the religion practiced by Mormons, and is the predominant religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement. This movement was founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. beginning in the 1820s as a form of Christian primitivism.’ [wiki]

An (American) correspondent in London in the BBC’s ‘Dateline London’ warned about casual, uninformed, arrogant attitudes towards a certain kind of superficially simplistic American politicians like George W Bush, or Mitt Romney. He suggested that American politicians struggle with nuance and irony while setting great store by their own earnestness: (‘And I, along with my cherished wife and three wunnerful kids, mean this most sincerely!!’). You see, American emotionalism translates as dim-wittedness over here. Because I was aware of this, I did, emmafinney, try to honestly give George W Bush the benefit of the doubt -- for far longer than the rapscallion reserved so, I’m afraid, you have no lessons to impart on that score.

'As I said, all nations and all peoples are guilty of racism in one way or another. Don't put your country above the others in terms of "fair and balanced"' [Rivierarocket]

I didn’t. Even my capital letters don't appear to have helped. Repeat: the British were racist but EVEN THEY were shocked by the behaviour of quite a lot of white GIs towards black GIs:

‘The WHOLE POINT is that in those dim and distant days EVEN the benighted Brits’ sensibilities (casual ‘racism’ and all) were offended by the crassly larger-than-life attitudes of very young and untraveled American GIs.’ [Plazidus]

Perhaps I should have written 'unthinking' in place of 'casual' since you are unprepared to give the present writer the benefit of the doubt. (In that context, 'casual' = 'unthinking'.) The term 'racist' appears with inverted commas to indicate that the 'colour bar' and 'colour prejudice' were in use in early 1944, it is anachronistic to use 'racist'.

You are sooo right. I could never understand why they didn't hop on a 747 and jet over to Paris for the weekend to take advantage of the sights, not to mention the "libertine françaises"

Do you have a sense of history or what to use that phrase as a reference?

In the early 40's those untraveled GIs had previously been working on the farm just trying to feed their families while Europe was embroiled in yet another war.

As far as those untraveled GIs were concerned, many of them made a one way trip and came back via the body bag.

This said, I have the utmost respect for the British people who stood strong and alone for so long in the face of adversity and bombing, refusing to compromise with the Nazis. Thank you Winston Churchill and thanks to the Brits for being tough as nails.

‘You are sooo right. I could never understand why they didn't hop on a 747 and jet over to Paris for the weekend to take advantage of the sights, not to mention the "libertine françaises" / Do you have a sense of history or what to use that phrase as a reference? / In the early 40's those untraveled GIs had previously been working on the farm just trying to feed their families while Europe was embroiled in yet another war. / As far as those untraveled GIs were concerned, many of them made a one way trip and came back via the body bag.’ [Rivierarocket]

First you wrongheadedly attack me for ‘casual racism’; now you attack me, equally wrongheadedly, for ‘young and untraveled GIs’. I was stating a fact and not a value-judgement. Let me remind you that the single contentious adjective I saved for the… ‘benighted Brits’.

It’s nice of you to be nice about the Brits 1939-45. Both Roosevelt and Churchill were far from perfect, though.

It speaks volumes that you have to go back to the America of the 1940's to defend the Britain of today.

We are so touched to hear about the British outrage over treatment of black GI's, however what a shame there was no outrage over 'Paki bashing'. Where were the numerous cases of gallant Brits saving the victims of Paki bashing?

And why is that your schools today don't teach your kids about the horrendous racism & discrimination against Asians & blacks when they first started arriving in large numbers in Britain after ww2 which lasted well into the 1970's while school children & teachers all over British schools cry and wail in anguish over how Rosa Parks had to give up her bus seat 60 years ago?

When football stadiums used to erupt in ape chants at black players not so long ago in Britain, most Brits shrugged it off while weeping over Martin Luther king's "I have a dream" speech.

If your knowledge of Mormonism is derived solely from John Smith's revalations while being totally ignorant about how it is actually practised by the vast majority of mormons say no more.

After all the vrigin birth and Jesus rising from the dead sound very dim witted too won't you say?

An American correspondent?
American correspondents say the most stupidiest things some times just like British correspondents.

Have you taken a look lately at your tendency to generalize a country of 300 million people based on the words of one American correspondent who may or who may not have known what he was talking about?

And may I suggest you read more than one book to get a better idea about the black GI's in Britain. I know personally stories about white American GI's who too objected to the treatment of blacks by some of their less enlightened fellow soldiers, not to mention British store keepers who sometimes refused to serve Black GIs. So your black & white version of events may boost your feelings of superiority but does not give the whole picture of a complex and complicated situation.

George Bush? Can you tell us about all the idiotic British leaders you have elected. Chamberlain would be good starting point.

'We are so touched to hear about the British outrage over treatment of black GI's, however what a shame there was no outrage over 'Paki bashing'. Where were the numerous cases of gallant Brits saving the victims of Paki bashing?

'And why is that your schools today don't teach your kids about the horrendous racism & discrimination against Asians & blacks when they first started arriving in large numbers in Britain after ww2 which lasted well into the 1970's while school children & teachers all over British schools cry and wail in anguish over how Rosa Parks had to give up her bus seat 60 years ago?'

There are a number of things here which are false and/or offensive. What's more, the reasonably informed reader knows so. Conclusion, do yourself a favour and cross-check facts. Virtuous indignation is no excuse. You are a poor advocate for the cause you claim to espouse: for instance, you continue to misunderstand sentences in plain English and despite having your attention drawn to the fact:

'It is a fact F-A-C-T that Brits’ sense of fair-play was offended by white GIs’ behaviour towards their black comrades. Fact. No doubt at all that the Brits also had what – with the benefit of hindsight! – we would today call racist attitudes. But that is off-topic, irrelevant. The WHOLE POINT is that in those dim and distant days EVEN the benighted Brits’ sensibilities (casual ‘racism’ and all) were offended by the crassly larger-than-life attitudes of very young and untraveled American GIs.' [Plazidus, who never gets angry]

"The WHOLE POINT is that in those dim and distant days EVEN the benighted Brits’ sensibilities (casual ‘racism’ and all) were offended by the crassly larger-than-life attitudes of very young and untraveled American GIs."

Have you read any books on how your former colonial subjects from Asia and Africa were treated during WW2 when they fought for the British empire?

And you may want to check with your former colonial subjects in Asia and Africa too about the way they were treated by those Brits who were more offended by racism than American GIs.

"when you were sherryBlack you, yourself, told that you had south-African origins, zulus if I remember well."
I never told any such thing.
It was your fellow racist buddy Pumpy who called me a zulu as an insult. No surprise there why you fell for it.

‘Louisiana never had a French majority, in fact it had been a Spanish colony also before being administered by the French crown. Its Spanish, blacks & creole populations were larger than the French. This melting pot was so different from Quebec.’ [emmafinney]'

"Don't accuse if you are unaware of what is going on in your own backyard."

He is strangely defeaningly silent about British racism .

After all how damning that former British colonial subjects are flourishing in America while Britain has no equivalent Nikki Haleys or Bobby Jindals even with its immigrant Asian population now in the 3rd or 4th generation.

His moral preening on racism is hilarious to say the least comming as he does from the country that gave the world the term "paki bashing".

Possibly the need for a civil rights revolution (big words...) was not so high for Britain and most of Europe?

Ever wondered why the civil rights movement really was born after black soldiers came back from Europe with new, perhaps a bit optimistic, experiences in race relations? (similar stories to Plazidus' about French bar owners kicking out US officers who wanted separate facilities in French bistros were not uncommon.) And why did so many black artists spend so much time in Europe?

My family was very conservative. Yet the status of blacks in the US in the sixties appalled us. My father wept over Dr Martin Luther King's death. You have come a very, very long way. Which is, indeed, commendable, but not everybody had the same history to overcome.

Dominique I don't deny the appalling status of blacks in the south nor the way some American GI's treated them.

What I do object is the generalization about an entire country based on the actions of some.

It was not Europeans but white Americans who joined together with MLK and the NAACP to dismantle Jim Crow. White Americans from the presidents to congressmen to trade unions to students to many ordinary people who were appalled as well and put an end to segregation.

Believe it not my grandparents in Boston were as equally appalled as your father about segregation.

Europeans didn't end segregation in the south. Americans both white and black did.

What I object to also is the European narrative that whitewashes the contribution of white Americans to end segregation and pretend as if Europeans were the good guys in this story.

You and I both know European racism in African and Asian colonies were nothing much to brag about either.

Gotta admit you are so predictable....Now we are at claptrap. I can only imagine how far you will go when the world doesn't agree with your viewpoint. If we keep going you can get a couple of pints in you mate, get a baseball bat (oops cricket) and go watch a football match with your mates and maybe bash a couple of heads on the way. You just can't admit that your country is also guilty of racism so you do the only thing you are capable of which is hitting the denial button.

At least I admit that certain elements of my country was, is and will continue to be racists. Like all countries. You keep banging on 2 people in Barking or wherever in WW2.

But Plazidus, both are one and the same. One acts ethical to gain from it. Else why would fundies of all faiths insist on the State backing their ethical guidelines with the executioner's axe and stake?

Whether t'is more practical for the mind
To suffer the snot and moralising of outraged bluenoses,
Or by ignoring them, incur a fiery end.

"What I object to also is the European narrative that whitewashes the contribution of white Americans to end segregation and pretend as if Europeans were the good guys in this story."

I basically agree, although I always was very much aware of that contribution. As a kid, I had a subscription to Life Magazine and its reporting was thorough. It was, overwhelmingly, Jewish whites - Jews being then marginalized in a very similar way.

Nobody claimed Europeans did anything but sit in the aisles and wring their hands. What else could they do? subsidize the NAACP? Maybe they should have.

they may not be Jewish US presidents, but they are numerous as Concil staff, Kissinger, for Nixon... Brezinski for Carter... Madeleine alltobright for the Clinton... all the hawks behind Bush Junior (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, John Bolton)... Rahm Emanuel for Obama...

"Nobody claimed Europeans did anything but sit in the aisles and wring their hands. What else could they do? subsidize the NAACP? Maybe they should have."

They didn't have to. Many white Americans sent money to the NACCP. The help they got from white Americans was more than enough.

Back in the 1960's America was 90% white and they voted for presidents, congressmen & senators who voted to end segregation through civil rights laws. This should tell you something. Clearly there was outrage out there against Jim Crow which was expressed through support for politicians who had sympathy for the black cause.

If the country was so racist than no politician who expressed sympathy for blacks or voted for civil rights could have got re-elected. Lyndon Johnson got relected in a landslide after passsing major civil rights laws. Jews only make up 2% of the population so it was not only Jewish support.

In fact there has been a long tradition since the end of the civil war of white sponsered college education for blacks during segregation. If you read Rosa Parks memoirs she writes of attending a college established & funded by northern whites to serve disadvantaged blacks in the south.

This black and white version of events with the Europeans as the good guys in WW2 so beloved in Europe is grossly misleading to say the least.

Segregation could not have ended without the support of the majority of white Americans. Period.

I'd like to think they are the same. I'm feeling a tide of benevolence toward my habitual sparring-partners... I cannot imagine why!!

As for 'moralising'... I'd like to think I avoid the cheap forms. In the Great Debate, I think I'd opt for the Camus brand over the Sartre one, flesh and bone not dry as dust:

Both Zaretsky and Vircondelet tackle the difficult moment when Camus, after having received the Nobel Prize, said: ‘I believe in justice, but I will defend my mother before I will defend justice’ – later converted by the press into ‘between justice and my mother, I choose my mother.’ Vircondelet calls this an ‘ultimate truth’, while the editor of Le Monde, Hubert Beuve-Méry, commented at the time that he always knew Camus would say something stupid. Yet the remark is not stupid, nor does it suggest political and moral fraud, as [de] Beauvoir thought it did.’

Beuve-Mery and Sarte hated Camus, he wasn't one of them : parisian intellos !

He said he would choose his mother rather than Justice, it's related to Algeria, where his mother was still living among the Arabs, where they had good relations, until the terrorists attacks, from the FLN and from the OAS. He would say that he understood the Algerians appetite for reconnaissance and justice, but after seeing the "carnage" between the two societies, he said that there weren't any possible relations anymore between them, and that his only concern was his mother, how she was living among the big mess

you often use cheap forms for moralising the French, at least the usual Brit clues

You do jolly well with your quoting. I always preferred the sportsman to the pseud. Camus over Sartre. Perhaps because I'm not very clever. I knew once a young man who claimed to have read 'L'Etre et le Neant' from cover to cover. How sad, I thought, Heidegger's 'Sein und Zeit' is much snappier.

I see- ONE consensual affair is okay. But only ONE- and with subordinates is also okay as long as they are adults. Brilliant logic. You should note that in Employee Handbooks across the country. It could save your judicial system from a lot of court hearings.

"In case you forgot he was impeached for ONE consensual affair with an adult woman."

Emma. Slick Willy was not impeached for having an affair. This is not a crime in the US. He was impeached because he lied to the Grand Jury.

I don't even want to get into the DSK affair (but I will. LOL) as it would just further demonstrate the cowardice of the French when it comes to their politicians and pwoer in general. And don't believe all of the respect for private life propaganda. It's just plain cowardice. The French only got into all of the DSK abuses of women after they realized that the Americans were not afraid to prosecute this kind of behavior. Just look at Tristan Banon affair. She waited years to bring charges and then only made her move after the Americans had set the stage. And Banon's mother who dissuaded her own daughter from pressing charges earlier because she herself had slept with DSK and didn't want to compromise her position within the socialist party. Cowards...The lot of them.

In fact, complex families with ex-partners all over the place, painstakingly negotiated agreements on kids, and everyday management of the related tensions (or lack thereof) are fast becoming the norm in France. Thus, paradoxically, this makes Mr. Hollande even more "normal", and the French to not take him to task for it; they mostly ask to be spared the details, and see more happening on the reform front.

Mister Hollande promises his electorate that the rich will pay more tax, at a rate of up to 75%, but self-evidently can't deliver on his solemn promise. How can he possibly undertake something really serious, like running a family? Or three?

"they mostly ask to be spared the details" Do they really? I call that outstanding hypocrisy!
French people complained that Sarkozy's life was too public, yet all "newspaper" issue with Sarkozy's private life on the front page was a hit.

this article is mere gossiping, something that you're fond of, it doesn't bring some light on France political and or economical position
first, this isn't bad manner to tell it, but you've got the arrogant posture to lecture us, sorry, we don't have your Murdoch taste for private investigations

‘PRESIDENT François Hollande was unfaithful to his former companion Ségolène Royal before he began an affair with Valérie Trierweiler, who is now France’s first lady, according to the latest book about his private life.
‘Hollande’s eye for beautiful women is said to have helped fuel a poisonous love triangle that has endured for years between Hollande, Trierweiler, nicknamed “the Duchess” by his campaign team for her haughtiness, and Royal, a fellow Socialist politician and mother of his four children.
‘Trierweiler, a journalist on Paris Match magazine, referred to Royal as “the mad woman of Poitou” — a reference to Royal’s leadership of the Poitou-Charentes region. The suggestion that Hollande was “no doubt” unfaithful to her before he met Trierweiler is contained in The Ex, a biography of Royal by the journalist Sylvain Courage out last week.
‘“François has his share of responsibility for Valérie’s incredible jealousy. He likes women. He looks at them. It’s very harrowing for Valérie,” a long-time friend of Hollande confided in another of the books published last month, Between Two Fires by Anna Cabana and Anne Rosencher.
‘Hollande emerges as so reserved and wrapped up in his political career that he often failed to give Trierweiler the love and attention that she expected. Until recently he would often tell his aides whenever he had to meet Royal at political events: “We have to reassure Valérie. We have to protect her.”’

Now, this could just at a stretch and a pinch be ‘Daily Mirror’… though it’s from the ‘Sunday Times’. Though it's reporting good wholesome stuff, the wherewithal of the French Kulturindustrie.